Posted
by
ScuttleMonkeyon Wednesday February 06, 2008 @06:03PM
from the deck-of-holos dept.

bendodge writes to mention the BBC is reporting that researchers at the University of Tucson, Arizona have created a polymer that allows holographic images to be created in minutes. Normally holographic images are created by mixing the results of multiple laser lights to lay down a static image, a lengthy and delicate process. "In a paper in Nature Mr Tay and colleagues describe their thin-film polymer that can have images 'written' to it in minutes and can be wiped as quickly to take and display another image. The material has been shown to stay stable throughout hundreds of write and erase cycles. The ability to quickly refresh images in holographs could mean that surgeons use them as a guide during operations or as a better way for pharmaceutical researchers to study molecular interactions for new drugs during simulations."

Ars has better coverage [arstechnica.com] which talks more about the polymers used and how this is actually achieved. It also has a link to the paper published in Nature [doi.org] (although you can only get an abstract if you're like me and don't have a subscription).

I submitted this story, too. So knowing Slashdot, we might see a dupe:-)

From R(ing)TFA, it appears that this thin material allows taking of a holographic IMAGE quickly. It still would be incredible useful, as holographs can be viewed from multiple angles and are in 3 dimensions. A photograph that sticks out. Granted, most of the ones I have seen are pretty bad but in principle they could be useful. The medical application does sound handy : instead of flat 2d xrays, xray machines would be basically digital CT scanners that gather enough information to produce a 3d image from a specific angle. This digitally processed 3d model would then be used as the basis for forming a holograph, suitable for placement on the X-ray reading boards and having on a clip next to a surgeon during surgery.

BUT...it is by no means a 3d display. The best way to have full motion, high resolution 3d images is still using a head mounted display combined with a sensor for tracking head movement.

It really is a holographic display. It uses a mixture of two polymers and quite a few kilovolts to zap things into place, after which you get a nice little display. It takes about half a second to form the image, which then lasts for about 3 hours (compared to it vanishing in about as much time as it took to create the image befo

Reading the article, I was decidedly unimpressed at the thought that this would be useful for surgery. You see, there are already software applications that can take a stack of CT images and create a 3d "flythrough" view. This technology already exists for PCs, so having a holographic version of the same thing seems like a HUUUUGE step backward, and

Or even worse the holographic ads that sci-fi films have been promising for decades. It'll start as "static" billboards, then as the technology matures and the display can refresh images faster we'd be looking at 3d commercials outside Victoria's Secret... yay

Na, let's just have SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX.The only good technologies are technologies that satisfy our increasingly perverted and nihilistic desires. We need holograms so we can see 3-d pictures of women having intercourse with wombats or particle accelerators. We need this technology so we can get the whole effect from the Pamela Anderson-Tommy Lee sex tape. It's absolute required so that when we have wardrobe malfunctions we can get titillating 3-d zooms over, above and below the all-important nipple. T

Well, because it's red. Military holograms will be blue, with horizontal lines. Also, they'll be projected into free space by mobile trash-can sized navigation/computation units. And they'll be used mostly for private communications rather than, as you would expect, as tactical displays.

BBC's coverage is pretty lame. Slashdot would serve its readers better by linking to coverage at a science blog instead. For instance, Ars Technica's Nobel Intent science journal [arstechnica.com] has a far superior writeup of the announcement.

So this seems like its moving toward a holograph writer which you could install in your PC. Then you could write holograms just like you burn a CD, but would these holograms have more or less storage capacity than what we have now?

In minutes? Wake me up when holographic images can be created in tens of milliseconds. Also, I demand a 20 cubic foot recessed tabletop display. Finally, it probably needs to cost under $500, so we can put one in every classroom.

It only takes minutes if you're making it on the re-writeable photorefractive polymers, of which this new one is an improvement.If you're using plain old film to make a non-re-writeable hologram, then it takes about as long as it takes your film to expose.

In minutes? Wake me up when holographic images can be created in tens of milliseconds. Also, I demand a 20 cubic foot recessed tabletop display. Finally, it probably needs to cost under $500, so we can put one in every classroom.

OK, back to sleep now.

Actually I keep wondering where the problem is with this. All you need is a spatial light modulator with a resolution significantly smaller than lambda. Why hasn't anybody built a DMD or silicon LCD with 100nm pixels?

I'm starting to get tired of seeing the "vaporware" tag for stuff that actually exists. Just because you can't buy it yet doesn't mean it's vaporware. Now had the scientists said, "We came up with an idea that would allow us to make a material that will/might/should display a hologram/holograph in minutes", and it's touted as something that will be available, then it's vaporware.

However:
"The material has been shown to stay stable throughout hundreds of write and erase cycles."
and
"The team has automat